This is yet another reason why eternalists are slandering the Buddha out of misfounded fear of annihilation. The cessation of existence (bhavanirodha, nibbāna) isn't something that happens in time, after which the rest of 'existence' goes on without the extinguished (nibbāna) 'person'; nor is it something that happens after which the extinguished 'person' goes on along with such 'existence' - it might as well be called the cessation of time, too.

It is not impermanent. It is not eternal. It is a stopping, the stopping of birth-death thisness-otherwiseness (itthabhāvaññathābhāva) saṁsāra, beyond which there is no designation of time.

Last edited by dylanj on Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:48 am, edited 6 times in total.

It is also slander of the Buddha to translate dhuva as eternal. Dhuva means stable. It is at times used in conjunction with sassata, which does mean eternal (obviously they don't mean the same exact thing if used together - meanwhile the association yet disparity between stable & eternal is also obvious), but in such contexts involve, unsurprisingly, eternalists whom the Buddha refutes.

Possibly, the picture might need to be read more carefully, which states: "appavatta; freedom from samsara; i.e., Nibbana". This might be saying: "appavatta is the non-continuing, non-persisting of samsara or vatta".

It is at times used in conjunction with sassata, which does mean eternal (obviously they don't mean the same exact thing if used together - meanwhile the association yet disparity between stable & eternal is also obvious), but in such contexts involve, unsurprisingly, eternalists whom the Buddha refutes.

The suttas appear to say "Eternalism" is related views about "self" (rather than a characteristic of Nibbana).

He speaks thus: 'The self and the world are eternal, barren, steadfast as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar.

And how do some adhere? Human & divine beings enjoy becoming, delight in becoming, are satisfied with becoming. When the Dhamma is being taught for the sake of the cessation of becoming, their minds do not take to it, are not calmed by it, do not settle on it or become resolved on it. This is how some adhere.

I hope this post doesn't scare the eternalists here as badly as my last one on the topic

It would be a timorous eternalist who was scared by two words and their contestable interpretations. Until they know for themselves, "defeat" would merely consist of switching allegiance to another speculative view.

I hope this post doesn't scare the eternalists here as badly as my last one on the topic

It would be a timorous eternalist who was scared by two words and their contestable interpretations. Until they know for themselves, "defeat" would merely consist of switching allegiance to another speculative view.